By Angelo Codevilla
Monday, February 15, 2016
Russian President Vladimir Putin is well on the way to
securing what had been western Syria for whatever dependent Putin might choose.
He has been supporting Syrian President Bashar al Assad’s Alewite forces with
fighter-bombers and the Iranian and various Shia militias he recruited and
supplied. In the coming months, Putin is likely to consummate his position as
arbiter of the Levant—defining the borders of its Kurdistan, Sunni-stan, and
Shia-stan, as well as the roles of counties in the region, while excluding
Americans.
He is doing this by adhering to elements of
political-military success that his American rivals forgot or never learned,
incidentally offering us something of a refresher course in these matters.
The simplicity of Russia’s strategy and coherence of the
political and military measures Russia is using to pursue it contrast with the
diffuse and outright self-contradictory nature of U.S. policy and
political-military operations. That contrast will become increasingly clear
during the next six months or so.
Putin’s success stems from his focus on Russia’s own
interest in securing an expanded influence in the Mediterranean crossroad
between Europe and the Middle East. Since the Muslim world’s war between Sunni
and Shia now rages in the Levant, and since Russia’s Tartus naval base is
located in the Alewite (a branch of Shia) part of former Syria, securing
Russia’s interest had to begin with making sure that the Shia side will hold
this area undisturbed. But securing it, from the Golan Heights up to the
Turkish border between the Mediterranean and the Euphrates, also requires
accommodating Israel’s interests in the south and obtaining cooperation with
the Kurds in the north.
Vladimir Putin Has
Strategic Clarity
This was possible because Putin, realizing that people
fight only for what they want for themselves, chose to enter the fray
unequivocally and irrevocably on the side of the Shia. But the very
indispensability of Russia’s carefully calibrated military support to the Shia
side limits what it could do.
Moreover, in 2015 Putin actually gave the Shia Alewis
what they needed to accomplish what they passionately wanted to do—in the area
of Russian interest. In 2016, he is setting about doing the same for the Kurds
in their sector of that area. By the same token, he was able to reassure Israel
that Iran would not be allowed to use Russia’s intervention to encroach upon
the Golan front or outflank it.
This strategic clarity and consistency however,
presupposes an equal and opposite enmity to Sunni states—to Turkey most
directly, but also to Saudi Arabia and Qatar—as well as to Sunni causes and
groups in general, notably ISIS. How far Putin intends to take this enmity
depends mostly on the extent to which these oppose his strategic design. Sunni
jihadists, after all, do pose a threat to Russian domination in central Asia.
In the case of Turkey, the enmity is structural. Quite
simply, Turkey is the immediate, overwhelming source of logistical support for
Sunni causes in the Levant—for ISIS, as well as for every other group of “Sunni
rebels.” So, from the beginning, Russian-backed military operations have
destroyed Sunni threats to the Alewi heartland by cutting supply lines that run
northward into Turkey. That job is almost done.
Russia’s tactics—every bomb, every attack—have been steps
to its operational objective of closing the Turkish border to Sunni forces.
Consummating that objective, however, now requires working closely with the YPG
Kurds in the border area. Hence Russia’s main political objective for the first
half of 2016 is to cement that relationship. This is increasingly possible
because these Kurds’ relationship with the United States is increasingly
problematic.
Unlike the U.S. government, however, Putin has no ties to
Turkey that prevent him from giving the Kurds whatever they need to take over
the border, which is equally in their interest and in Russia’s. Once its allies
guard the Turkish border, Russia will be the unchallenged mistress of the
Fertile Crescent, while the United States will have become irrelevant there.
American Policy Is
Incoherent
Let us now consider the contrast: U.S. policy’s
complexity bordering on self-contradiction and the incoherence between its
operations and any concept of success.
U.S. policy does not pursue any objective which, if
achieved, would serve its interest in a way comparable to how Russia would be
served by becoming the Fertile Crescent’s arbiter. The wish of many U.S. policy
makers to prevent Iran from becoming the area’s hegemon does not qualify. If
this were more than one wish among others, the U.S. government would not be
transferring upward of $100 billion to Iran and facilitating its commerce or
cooperating with Iran to fight ISIS in former Iraq.
By the same token, if the U.S. government treated
destroying ISIS or securing hegemony for itself over the area as Putin treats
his objectives, it would be dealing with its local partners—the Turkish, Saudi,
and Iraqi governments, and the Kurds and militias of all kinds—as the dominant
rather than as the subordinate party. The U.S. government ends up not focusing
on its own interests because it confuses them with those of it local partners.
Thus does it confuse means with ends.
U.S. policy has also made “stability”—maintaining the
territorial integrity of the region’s states—an end in itself, thus sacrificing
fruitful relationships with the individual ethnic and religious groups that
compose the Middle East. Having become the last defender of borders and regimes
against which local peoples are rebelling, America ends up semi-allied with
governments that are increasingly impotent and internally conflicted, as well
as with ethnic and religious groups that are as partially committed to American
objectives as the U.S. government is to theirs.
We’re Undermining
Our Own Goals
Lacking focus on America’s own interests, U.S. policy has
leaned heavily on the Sunni side of the Sunni-Shia war while trying to combat
the Sunni jihadism of which ISIS is but one manifestation. But the Turkish,
Saudi, Qatari, etc. governments’ commitment to fighting constituents of their
polities is ambiguous at best. Moreover, they have other priorities.
For example Turkey’s ruling party, part and parcel of the
Muslim Brotherhood, has been and continues to sponsor all manner of Sunni
forces in former Syria and Iraq. War against the Kurds seems to be its primary
preoccupation. U.S. officials ask the Turks to close the border to ISIS. The
Turks answer, insincerely, that they have done so and demand that the Americans
curtail help to the Kurds who, they say, use U.S weapons for terrorism inside
Turkey.
Although the U.S. government has no evidence of this and
the Kurds have been the only effective ground force against ISIS, the United
States refuses to supply them with heavy weapons and support their movement
westward to close the Turkish border. In sum, when faced with a choice between
pursuit of an operational end and support of a nominal ally, U.S. officials
choose the latter.
The same holds true in former Iraq, where the U.S.
government has insisted that Kurdistan’s Pesh Merga fight with light infantry
weapons against an ISIS armed with the full complement of U.S. armored
divisions the Iraqi army abandoned. All this, to content a Baghdad government
whose writ runs no farther than the Shia population. At the same time, however,
U.S. officials displease that same government by trying to exclude the highly
motivated Shia militia from the anti-ISIS fight and by trying to make the Iraqi
army more Sunni-friendly.
U.S. military operations similarly invite contempt and
disaffection. With the partial exception of the direct air support the United
States provided Kurdish forces both on the Mosul/Erbil front and in the
Kobani/Euphrates area, U.S. air attacks have been all about attrition of fixed
facilities, designed to minimize casualties. There is no sense that series of
attacks A, followed by attacks B, C, etc., would lead to any operational
success such as destroying or even isolating ISIS, never mind to achieving any
strategic goal.
The failures of this complexity, confusion, and
half-heartedness—the opposite of Putin’s modus operandi—should lead the United
States’ highly credentialed foreign policy establishment to audit the Putin
school’s current semester, and to take notes.
No comments:
Post a Comment